Recommended Posts

Jedd Johnson 3,358

Jedd Johnson
3,358

The NAGS committee has updated the qualification criteria for participation at the North American Grip Sport Championship. Since the criteria was first developed in 2012, the results of dozens of grip sport contests have been entered into the Top 100 database, and weaknesses were identified. (The old qualifications list can be found here:

The following is a list of the main changes that have been made to the criteria and the reason why they were changed:

·The qualification standards for some of the lower weight classes have been lowered. Contest results from the past few years were analyzed and it was concluded that they were too challenging.

·Some of the less common qualification lifts have been removed. As they are rarely contested, there isn’t a need to keep them.

·A minimum of three competitors must be in a class in order for the winner to qualify. This is to ensure that the qualification is truly earned. Athletes who do not qualify due to low attendance will still be able to qualify via one of the other Qualification Chances.

·Additional wording has been added to provide clarification, as some of the text could be interpreted in different ways.

The new qualifications take effect immediately. However, any competitor that had already qualified for the 2016 NAGS Championship via the previous criteria remains qualified.

Qualification Chance 1:

During the current NAGS season, athletes who:

• Finish in the top third of their weight class in a NAGS-sanctioned contest.
• Finish in the top third of overall standings in a NAGS-sanctioned contest.

There must be a minimum of three competitors in a weight class in order for someone to qualify.

The number of qualified competitors will be rounded down where required.

Example:

If there is 1 competitor in a class, no one qualifies;

If there are 2 competitors in a class, no one qualifies;

If there are 3 competitors in a class, the winner qualifies;

If there are 4 competitors in a class, the winner qualifies;

If there are 5 competitors in a class, the winner qualifies;

If there are 6 competitors in a class, the top 2 qualify;

If there are 7 competitors in a class, the top 2 qualify;

If there are 8 competitors in a class, the top 2 qualify;

If there are 9 competitors in a class, the top 3 qualify;

If there are 10 competitors in a class, the top 3 qualify;

…

In the case of multi-venue contests, qualifications are calculated based on the entire field of competitors (not just the competitors at a given venue).

“Season” is defined as the time between NAGS Championships. The 2015-16 season began on June 7th, 2015 and concludes with the 2016 NAGS Championship on June 4th, 2016.

Qualification Chance 2:

Athletes can also qualify for Nationals by completing any three of the following feats during the current NAGS season, either in NAGS-sanctioned contests or through video submission (with proof of filming date).

Share on other sites

Squeezus 1,984

Squeezus
1,984

Thanks for putting in the work to improve the way we handle the championship.

In terms of qualifications, does it not seem a bit unfair to change the requirements 1 month out from the competition? I would think that it would make more sense to either A.) Allow competitors to be grandfathered in on the old requirements if they meet them, or B.) Have the new requirements be effective after NAGS 2016.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Eric Roussin 1,906

Eric Roussin
1,906

Anyone who has qualified under the previous qualifications is qualified for the 2016 NAGS Championship. The majority of qualification lifts have been made easier, though there are some exceptions. One of the hopes is that it would allow more lower weight competitors to attend this year's event.

If anyone feels they could have qualified under the old qualifications, but cannot under the new ones, please contact me and we can see what can be done. But I would be surprised if this was the case.

Jedd Johnson
3,358

Thanks for putting in the work to improve the way we handle the championship.

In terms of qualifications, does it not seem a bit unfair to change the requirements 1 month out from the competition? I would think that it would make more sense to either A.) Allow competitors to be grandfathered in on the old requirements if they meet them, or B.) Have the new requirements be effective after NAGS 2016.

It was probably a bad time to release this. We simply did it, because we worked on it now and got it done. No other reason. Sometimes, you just need toget the work done when you have time, and we all seemed to have time the last 3 weeks, to focus on something.

As a co-promoter of the NAGS event, I'd be happy with an athlete using either list, and then requiring the new list for next year's NAGS.

I know my intention was NEVER to make the overall process of qualifying harder. I, personally, didn't even realize things went up, like @Jared Goguen mentioned.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

KapMan 1,646

KapMan
1,646

This updated list will defiantly help with ironing out some goals. I knew I wouldn't make it this year unless I drop to 83K lol. Being 120K+ kinda sucks because my strength isn't there for any of those qualifying lifts. Even if I won a contest, I still would be able to compete with people in my class or 1 or 2 classes below. Got lots of work to do. Thanks for all the hard work fellas.

Jedd Johnson 3,358

Jedd Johnson
3,358

This updated list will defiantly help with ironing out some goals. I knew I wouldn't make it this year unless I drop to 83K lol. Being 120K+ kinda sucks because my strength isn't there for any of those qualifying lifts. Even if I won a contest, I still would be able to compete with people in my class or 1 or 2 classes below. Got lots of work to do. Thanks for all the hard work fellas.

Definitely beneficial to cut the weight, both for grip sport and overall health. So glad I did this in 2013.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

KapMan 1,646

KapMan
1,646

My gains are too great right now to justify a cut. Some how some way I'm leaning out everywhere else but my gut. When I shot up to 300 lbs my lifts shot up significantly as well. Honestly the gut is my only gripe, though admittedly I need to get back into improving my conditioning. Summer is a perfect time to really hit that aspect hard here in NC because the humidity is so crappy it makes you have to work harder. I look forward to sharing my results.

Bryan Hunsaker
201

Guys, I'm new on the board, so I understand my opinion isn't likely held in high esteem at the moment, but I just want some clarity on the weight classifications for "elite" status. I'll preface with the fact that on the basis of the "Qualification Chance 2" category, I can perform enough lifts to qualify, so that in mind, I'm not taking issue with ability to classify. What is difficult is this:

If you go to the NAGS site and pull the top lifts in the 2-handed euro, the DO axle and the card-set gripper (not sure if that is the right one or not), say you were #5, globally, in all those events, you wouldn't classify as "elite" in the 120kg+ category - you'd be about 20 lbs shy. If you were 3rd in the world at all 3, you'd barely qualify. I'm having trouble reconciling that. If you look at the euro and gripper, there is no indication whatsoever that there is transfer-over based on weight, because, again, look at the top lifts...and even peruse on down. I'll give on the axle, and can see some justification there for the weight tie-in, but even still, I know a ton of guys that weigh around 90kg and pull over 300kg.

And look at very respected lifts...say COC#3 (~150lbs), DO Axle (~420lbs), Euro (~240 lbs): You still don't make it to 840.

I guess to sum it up, I don't think the weight classifications are necessarily linearly correlated, so some people may be held to unnecessarily high standards - it puts "elite" status way out of reach. This isn't math class, and everything can't be over-scrutinized, but take a guy like Gil who has a killer grip, and I really respect, who I outweigh by easily a hundred pounds and consider: how does my weight help me on the euro or gripper against Gil. What's more, how does my weight help on the axle when capability to deadlift isn't in question as Gil pulls let's say 240kg off the floor, and I pull 300kg and we're talking a DO pull in the 190kg range, give or take? Maybe a bit...ok...but to where my grouping needs to outperform by 110lbs or 150lbs, overall, depending on what Gil happens to weigh today (sorry I don't know). I lift with multiple guys that pull 400+ kg off the floor, and it isn't even close for us on the axle - I'm leaps and bounds ahead.

Food for thought, guys. Gil, sorry for singling you out - we just happen to be close on some lifts.

All this said, I look forward to competing with all of you soon, officially!

Guys, I'm new on the board, so I understand my opinion isn't likely held in high esteem at the moment, but I just want some clarity on the weight classifications for "elite" status. I'll preface with the fact that on the basis of the "Qualification Chance 2" category, I can perform enough lifts to qualify, so that in mind, I'm not taking issue with ability to classify. What is difficult is this:

If you go to the NAGS site and pull the top lifts in the 2-handed euro, the DO axle and the card-set gripper (not sure if that is the right one or not), say you were #5, globally, in all those events, you wouldn't classify as "elite" in the 120kg+ category - you'd be about 20 lbs shy. If you were 3rd in the world at all 3, you'd barely qualify. I'm having trouble reconciling that. If you look at the euro and gripper, there is no indication whatsoever that there is transfer-over based on weight, because, again, look at the top lifts...and even peruse on down. I'll give on the axle, and can see some justification there for the weight tie-in, but even still, I know a ton of guys that weigh around 90kg and pull over 300kg.

And look at very respected lifts...say COC#3 (~150lbs), DO Axle (~420lbs), Euro (~240 lbs): You still don't make it to 840.

I guess to sum it up, I don't think the weight classifications are necessarily linearly correlated, so some people may be held to unnecessarily high standards - it puts "elite" status way out of reach. This isn't math class, and everything can't be over-scrutinized, but take a guy like Gil who has a killer grip, and I really respect, who I outweigh by easily a hundred pounds and consider: how does my weight help me on the euro or gripper against Gil. What's more, how does my weight help on the axle when capability to deadlift isn't in question as Gil pulls let's say 240kg off the floor, and I pull 300kg and we're talking a DO pull in the 190kg range, give or take? Maybe a bit...ok...but to where my grouping needs to outperform by 110lbs or 150lbs, overall, depending on what Gil happens to weigh today (sorry I don't know). I lift with multiple guys that pull 400+ kg off the floor, and it isn't even close for us on the axle - I'm leaps and bounds ahead.

Food for thought, guys. Gil, sorry for singling you out - we just happen to be close on some lifts.

All this said, I look forward to competing with all of you soon, officially!

Wilks has a good balance on emphasis between overall strength and power-to-weight ratio, so as not to be too unfair to the extra small or extra large fellows. If we could find a Wilks number that works well for everyone, that would be a very simple way to be fair about it, I think. Then they could just input their body weight and find out what weight they have to lift to be elite.

Bryan Hunsaker
201

That looks really interesting, @Squeezus - thank you for sharing and pulling together the algorithm into XLS format - very cool! Being ridiculously tall, and heavy (though not for my height), I'm definitely in favor of something that better accounts for leverages and goes beyond a simple xBODYWEIGHT calc to assess the value of a lift.

@Mikael Siversson There's always someone out there, lurking, that is bigger, faster and stronger. That said, I've personally watched 3 of probably the top 10 (arguably) strongest guys in the US try some decent weights on VBAR, CRUSHER, FLASK and my DB, and not do as well as you'd think. Some of the guys on the Board are monsters at grip, and would put athletes from a variety of disciplines in their place. Athleticism doesn't always translate to lifting or grip (especially grip). I played American football in college, and some of the best guys on the field were only mediocre in the weight room. The inverse was often true, as well. I guess bottom-line for me is that while there is validity to your point, and there are some talented people out there that could transition over, there is a lot of talent already deeply entrenched in grip sport that is very impressive and accomplished.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mikael Siversson 568

Mikael Siversson
568

My answer was more a reflection of the rarity of competitors with an athletic build in the heavy weight classes. The standard would no doubt rise in the heavy classes with the addition of lean, juiced up competitors. Nothing I would look forward to but there are plenty of larger-sized people with a muscular build that would raise the standard significantly. I know of large bodybuilders and truck drivers with no lifting background lifting the inch first try without too much strain (eg witnessed by Arne Persson, co-founder of the LGC competition). I even think Arne posted a video on the GB of the truck driver guy. The older truck driver guy complained it was heavy! He had no idea what a feat most consider this to be.

Ever since I got into Grip over a decade ago - people have been talking about "well when such and such a group starts doing this - everything is going to change". Except that it really hasn't if you take out fat bar and huge handed individuals. Generally speaking big guys are stronger than smaller guys but it's not nearly as simple as that obviously when you look at the Top Lists. Most 120+ guys are "fat" by the standards associated with the lighter classes and while leaner lifters might not lift as much in gross terms - they probably would "per weight class"..

Share on other sites

Jedd Johnson 3,358

Jedd Johnson
3,358

@Bryan Hunsaker, I'm right there with you. I have always felt that body weight was a bad way to categorize grip sport, but have always been out-voted. I actually used to run contests with hand size divisions.

The Elite numbers were produced based off the starting point of 800lbs total of gripper, 2hp, and axle in 2010, by me.

It stayed there for a couple of years, then, I want to say it was extrapolated to the other weight classes when they were instituted, and I recall the Wilks formula being used to figure them out. Bent Barbe and Chris Rice, I believe, spearheaded that.

Looks like it needs work, though, based on this feedback. I'm sure we can hammer this out, but it's most likely not going to be done until after Nationals.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

Mikael Siversson 568

Mikael Siversson
568

Not in the 2HP though Jedd. Your best comp result is in the 120k+ (followed by 120k) in spite of several additional years of training at a lighter bodyweight. Same with me as I am yet, after several years at 74k, to match my best 2HP at 83k.

Losing body fat reduces the skin surface area you can apply in the pinch. In the axle and grippers I don't think you will see any loss of strength until you are quite lean. Try 93k and get back to us for a report.

Many would probably also disagree with you regarding the axle. Large hands will not get a heavy axle going but large body size and the commonly associated body strength will. With strong individuals you often see them performing a quick pull only to struggle mightily with the lockout as the grip strength is not on par with the pulling power. In other words large body size is advantageous in the axle as long as we are talking about muscle.

Jedd Johnson
3,358

Not in the 2HP though Jedd. Your best comp result is in the 120k+ (followed by 120k) in spite of several additional years of training at a lighter bodyweight. Same with me as I am yet, after several years at 74k, to match my best 2HP at 83k.

I labeled the lifts grippers and axle.

Losing body fat reduces the skin surface area you can apply in the pinch. In the axle and grippers I don't think you will see any loss of strength until you are quite lean. Try 93k and get back to us for a report.

I'm not arguing about this with you. I'm sharing a bit of history with a new member.

Many would probably also disagree with you regarding the axle. Large hands will not get a heavy axle going but large body size and the commonly associated body strength will. With strong individuals you often see them performing a quick pull only to struggle mightily with the lockout as the grip strength is not on par with the pulling power. In other words large body size is advantageous in the axle as long as we are talking about muscle.

Link to post

Share on other sites

Cannon 2,985

Cannon
2,985

If you go to the NAGS site and pull the top lifts in the 2-handed euro, the DO axle and the card-set gripper (not sure if that is the right one or not), say you were #5, globally, in all those events, you wouldn't classify as "elite" in the 120kg+ category - you'd be about 20 lbs shy. If you were 3rd in the world at all 3, you'd barely qualify. I'm having trouble reconciling that.

I've been fairly vocal about this as well. I always made peace that "Elite" is meant to set apart very strong individuals who are well-rounded and literally at the top of their class--Not just in the top 5... at the top. The only thing that bugged me was that when the lighter class totals were set, I held all three world records and still didn't make the total that was decided. But, admittedly axle is not a phenomenal lift for me. My axle record was competitive but short-lived and someone like Conner (I believe that is his name) came along and showed what is really possible. And, at this point, it's entirely my fault that I didn't make 66kg Elite. I botched my axle attempts the last time I completed at that weight, which I recounted here.